Astrobiologists Find Ancient Fossils in Meteorite Fragments

http://www.technologyreview.com/view/512381/astrobiologists-find-ancient-fossils-in-fireball-fragments/

by uptown • 13 years ago

252 86 13 years ago

aneth43• 13 years ago

Could they not carbon date the fossils to see if they correspond with the existence of similar lifeforms on Earth?

heidar• 13 years ago

I do not think this would work on organisms that did not live and die in our atmosphere because the ratio of C12 and C14 is local to our atmosphere and might be very different where they come from.

egeozcan• 13 years ago

that apparently wouldn't work on extra-terrestrial stuff as it seems to depend on "the ratio of 14C to 12C in the atmosphere" and works for "up to about 58,000 to 62,000 years"[1]

[1] http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Radiocarbon_dating

aneth43• 13 years ago

Right, so if it turned out to come from the future or 10 billion years ago on that scale, then it's likely extraterrestrial.

As you say though, it's not good in the billions.

evilduck• 13 years ago

Carbon dating is only good for about 50,000 years back. There are other radiometric dating methods, but none as useful for dating lifeforms.

wtvanhest• 13 years ago

Its probably worth reading the last two paragraphs first:

"There are other explanations, of course. One is that the fireball was of terrestrial origin, a remnant of one of the many asteroid impacts in Earth’s history that that have ejected billions of tonnes of rock and water into space, presumably with biological material inside. Another is that the structures are not biological and have a different explanation.

Either way, considerably more work will have to be done before the claims from this team can be broadly accepted. Exciting times ahead!"

carbocation3• 13 years ago

The identified structures look no more nor less "lifelike" than other random bits found in the rock (image is here [1]).

As far as I can tell, this evidence doesn't even begin to scratch at the surface of information needed to demonstrate or even really suggest that these were ever living organisms.

The nail in the coffin, for me, is the fact that this is set to be published in the Journal of Cosmology, a publication of questionable repute [2].

[1] https://www.technologyreview.com/sites/default/files/images/...

[2] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Journal_of_Cosmology

raverbashing3• 13 years ago

"The nail in the coffin, for me, is the fact that this is set to be published in the Journal of Cosmology, a publication of questionable repute [2]."

So it's ok to go Ad Hominem against anything that contradicts our current knowledge? Ok, got it

carbocation3• 13 years ago

> So it's ok to go Ad Hominem against anything that contradicts our current knowledge? Ok, got it

The whole point of scientific journals is to change our current knowledge, so that's not really a fair criticism of my dismissal.

Read even just the Wikipedia article and you'll see that this journal has several issues: (1) the quality of its peer review is questionable; (2) it appears to promote fringe views; (3) it has been widely criticized by the scientific community.

So yes, after criticizing the research itself, I also dug around and discovered problems with the journal it was being published in. I don't see anything wrong with doing so. Had the data looked less bogus I probably wouldn't have been suspicious enough to investigate the source.

tokenadult3• 13 years ago

No, it's that an extraordinary claim that would revolutionize our understanding of the universe would be likely to be published in a high-impact journal, if it is backed up by enough evidence to survive review in that journal. When the principal investigator of a study is someone who has to publish in his own journal,

http://journalofcosmology.com/Contents11.html

(Wickramasinghe is "Executive Editor, Astrobiology" for the Journal of Cosmology)

then you can see for yourself a bad sign about the strength of evidence for the paper.

See

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Identifying_reliable_...

for more details on identifying reliable sources.

AFTER EDIT:

The group blog Retraction Watch

http://retractionwatch.wordpress.com/

is an excellent glimpse into the world of scientific publishing, and shows how many low-ranking journals there are that are hard up for content. I think I learned about this interesting blog from another HN participant a year or two ago.

eksith• 13 years ago

It doesn't have the same reputation as New Scientist, but I'm taking it with some cautious optimism. I'm still reading the original report to filter through any embellishments etc... While structures alone may not provide conclusive evidence, perhaps the composition will.

The name Anil Samaranayake caught my eye, since he's the the director of the Colombo Medical Research Institute.

trentlott• 13 years ago

Their previous paper[1], and will only take about five to ten minutes to read, and gives you a pretty good idea what the level of this "journal" is.

Phil Plaitt also has a pretty good critique[2], but if you have the background, reading that paper should be enough to at least make you squint hard at their "science". There's a reason that people don't take the group seriously, and it's not fear from the establishment or whatever nonsense.

[1] http://journalofcosmology.com/JOC21/PolonnaruwaRRRR.pdf

[2] http://www.slate.com/blogs/bad_astronomy/2013/01/15/life_in_...

jahewson• 13 years ago

It's not an ad hominem to suggest that a piece of unconventional research is unlikely to be correct because it is published in a disreputable journal. Academia is all about reputation, and the standing of various journals.

If they had sufficient evidence to back up their claims then they would be on the cover of Nature. Unfortunately for them, actual Science requires peer-reviewed evidence. Publishing in your own journal does not count. It's a huge red flag.

lutusp7• 13 years ago

No, that's only a comment on the care taken with the norms of scientific discipline. Anyone can get an astrology paper published, just not in a reputable, refereed journal.

arrrg2• 13 years ago

If you are not an expert in the field, it will be very hard if not impossible for you to judge a scientific article on its merits.

In that light, looking at where something was published makes total sense. It’s a completely valid mechanism for non-experts to separate the crap from the good stuff. (Even experts, given all the stuff that is published all the time, have no time to read and evaluate everything on its merits. Increasing efficiency by centralizing that task and not forcing every scientist to do it all the time is more or less the purpose of journals.)

radio4fan• 13 years ago

Absolutely. It would be great it was true, but it's almost certainly not.

Images like this are effectively Rorschach tests. Sure, they may look like xenofossils to astrobiologists, but there are no doubt people to whom they look like their grandmother lying in a pool of blood...

riggins4• 13 years ago

It would be great it was true

Extraterrestrial life would be great? I'm not sure. I think the 2 most likely scenarios are: 1. ET would be far less evolved 2. ET would be far more evolved

#1 wouldn't be terribly interesting. So what about #2. What would that be like?

Well, we have some relevant experience from planet earth.

How do humans view/treat organisms that are far less evolved ... like bugs?

bargl• 13 years ago

I think the biggest thing for me is that it hasn't been verified by multiple studies... I tend to look for a broader acceptance than in one place. Then it's really a debate, this is just a cool finding that needs to be peer reviewed.

So I'd say it's too early to pull out the nails or the coffin, it is just an unverified theory right now. Those are a dime a dozen.

tripzilch5• 13 years ago

> published in the Journal of Cosmology, a publication of questionable repute [2].

Well, at least their publications are not behind a paywall, free for download:

http://arxiv.org/abs/1303.1845

so anyone can check the believability of this research themselves!

tokenadult3• 13 years ago

"This is an idea put forward by Fred Hoyle and Chandra Wickramasinghe, the latter being a member of the team who has carried out this analysis."

Chandra Wickramasinghe is currently the MAIN guy promoting the idea discussed in the article kindly submitted here (as Hoyle has died). Hacker News participants can gain perspective on this idea by reading "Diatoms…iiiiin spaaaaaaaaaaace!"

http://freethoughtblogs.com/pharyngula/2013/01/16/diatomsiii...

and

"Chandra Wickramasinghe replies…and fails hard"

http://freethoughtblogs.com/pharyngula/2013/01/18/chandra-wi...

to see comments by a biologist on why the evidence here is completely inadequate for Wickramasinghe's latest claim. Wickramasinghe has been around the block with claims like this before, and he is the editor of the main "journal" that promotes this idea, but none of his specific claims of finding extraterrestrial life have ever been backed up by convincing evidence.

EDIT: I should add the link to a critique of the extraordinary claim here by an astronomer

http://www.slate.com/blogs/bad_astronomy/2013/01/15/life_in_...

(this was linked in the links I put in this comment earlier), so you can see his comments on the new claim directly.

nemo• 13 years ago

While there seem to be serious issues with the research, it's hard to be won over by an article that starts with "You all know that the Journal of Cosmology is complete crap, right? In addition to some of the worst web design ever — it looks like a drunk clown puked up his fruit loops onto a grid of 1990s-style tables — the content is ridiculous, predictable, and credulous," and continues with "That’s the kind of rigorous scientific thinking we’re dealing with here." Admittedly I've never liked Myers style since he always has seemed to be an obnoxious advocate of a certain brand of orthodoxy, rather than giving any sense of nuanced or rigorous (scientific or otherwise) thinking.

tripzilch5• 13 years ago

Especially since I know many solid scientific websites with horrible design (especially professors' personal sites), so it's almost a show of ignorance to try and connect "rigorous scientific thinking" with proper web design.

scarmig• 13 years ago

You leave out the part where the Journal of Cosmology photoshopped Myers' head onto a picture of a plump woman in negligee.

By their fruits you shall know them. Sometimes it's appropriate to use a heavy touch. I would agree Myers relies on it much too much, but it's not inherently bad.

Though, as a minor point, Myers' site itself could use some better design chops...

mistercow• 13 years ago

>rather than giving any sense of nuanced or rigorous (scientific or otherwise) thinking.

Have you read his blog posts that aren't about atheism, or debunking, but are just about what he researches and teaches? Here's an example from today: http://scienceblogs.com/pharyngula/2013/03/11/what-i-taught-...

arrrg2• 13 years ago

Some things are so obviously bullshit, they deserve no serious treatment. This is one of them.

martinced• 13 years ago

It seems questionable but...

Even if it was true, couldn't it have been organisms from earth ejected into orbit after a meteor strike and, thousands of years later or more, falling back to earth?

Now if we find a definitive proof of panspermia it would be the biggest discovery ever made by mankind so far...

schiffern4• 13 years ago

>couldn't it have been organisms from earth ejected into orbit after a meteor strike and, thousands of years later or more, falling back to earth?

That would still be a hugely significant result.

We expect a higher density of biologically contaminated samples near the Earth. This is perfectly compatible with (but does not prove) panspermia.

The key question isn't whether space is sterile, but whether space is aseptic. That's harder to demonstrate.

To illustrate the difference, imagine a doctor scrubbing for surgery. It's impossible to scrub your hands until there's a population of zero pathogens, but fortunately that is unnecessary. You just need to reduce the population enough that the few organisms that remain just can't get a foot-hold.

We're in the back waters of the galaxy in a mature star system. Even if panspermia were rampant in the galaxy, we probably wouldn't see it. Stellar clusters, nebulae, Bok globules, and young star systems are where you would expect this kind of action.

Mechanically speaking panspemia is just diffusion, except instead of Brownian motion you have impact ejecta and gravitational evaporation. Each of these events has a probability curve. You could even construct your own "Panspermia Drake Equation", something like:

  P  = N_seed * R_ejection * Pop_specific * f_survival_ejection * f_escape
     * 2^-(T_encounter / t_1/2_cruise)
     * f_habitable * f_survival_reentry * f_germination
  
  P =                  rate of panspermia in a given volume of space
  N_seed =             number of seed (life-bearing) bodies in that volume
  R_ejection =         average rate at which mass is ejected from each
                         seed body (kg/yr)
  Pop_specific =       average specific population ('von Neumann'
                         individuals/kg) of ejected material
  f_survive_ejection = fraction of population that survives ejection
  f_escape =           fraction of ejected material that eventually escapes from
                         the stellar system, either due to initial velocity
                         or long-term orbital perturbations
  T_encounter =        average length of time before an escaped
                         object encounters another body
  t_1/2_cruise =       half-life of population exposed to interstellar conditions
  f_habitable =        fraction of encountered bodies that are habitable
  f_survive_reentry =  fraction of population that survives reentry
  f_germination =      fraction of the population that actually germinates

Looking at this equation it's not hard to see why dense regions with young star systems are preferred. Young systems have higher ejection and escape rates. Survival rates for ejection and re-entry are a function of energy, so having many less massive bodies is preferred. Young, single-cell-only ecosystems increase the specific population.

Of course, The number of seed bodies (N_seed) is the interesting part. This allows the equation to feed back on itself. Waaaaaaay out here in the Solar neighborhood, everything's so far apart that T_encounter rate limits that feedback to effectively zero, but in stellar clusters and nebulae you can find regions with dozens of stars per cubic light-year. As stars move within the galaxy they might experience different rates of panspermia – perhaps long lifeless intervals punctuated by "bursts" of bombardment, or maybe just once (in the conditions of the stellar nursery) and then never again.

When it comes to panspermia as an origin theory (aka exogenesis) I consider myself a "weak atheist", if you will. The meager evidence we have seems to suggest that life on Earth originated in abiogenesis, not panspermia. That doesn't mean that panspermia does not occur.

lifeisstillgood• 13 years ago

"Extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence" - Carl Sagan

When you find a fossilised rabbit in the meteorite, call me.

jmillikin• 13 years ago

Previously: http://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=5055227

General HN comment consensus is that the article is terribly poor science, published in a crank journal.

gus_massa• 13 years ago

Note: It was about a different analysis of the same event, by almost the same authors.

Jabbles• 13 years ago

This has come up before. Although this paper is considerably better presented than the previous one, the conclusions are still the same - the author is biased and the evidence is weak.

http://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=5055227

http://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=5055547

systematical• 13 years ago

I wouldn't call this clear evidence. Is it not possible the a large asteroid struck earth, kicking up debri from earth which happened to contain micro organisms. These organisms then died and fossilized in the space later returning...

tripzilch5• 13 years ago

Why does it always have to be Cardiff that gets all the aliens?

easymovet• 13 years ago

Their city is built on a rift in the time space continuom. The energy it gives off can be harnessed to recharge the TARDIS.

qwertzlcoatl• 13 years ago

Let's all keep in mind that this paper was published by physicists, in non-peer reviewed journals.

There is a lot of jumping the gun in these articles, especially when it's the lead authors first and only paper. Here is a link to the actual paper:

http://arxiv.org/ftp/arxiv/papers/1303/1303.1845.pdf

Here is a slate article that has already proven that the data mined by the "Astrobiologists" is faulty and biased:

http://www.slate.com/blogs/bad_astronomy/2013/01/15/life_in_...

celerity• 13 years ago

Please, please stop voting pseudo-science up so much. Look at the comments in the post. The second one pretty much explains why this "paper" has no credibility what-so-ever.

drcube• 13 years ago

Been there, done that:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Allan_Hills_84001

From the wiki article: '[T]he scientific consensus is that "morphology alone cannot be used unambiguously as a tool for primitive life detection."'

But let me know when they find a skeleton fossil in a meteorite.

lutusp7• 13 years ago

There are some serious problems with this claim:

1. "In total, Jamie Wallis at Cardiff University and a few buddies received 628 stone fragments collected from rice fields in the region. However, they were able to clearly identify only three as possible meteorites."

In other words, the researchers weren't in on the collection activity, and may not possess the expertise to distinguish meteoritic material from ordinary earthly rocks (that determination is not easy).

2. "One stone, for example, had a density of less than 1 gram per cubic centimetre, less than all known carbonaceous meteorites."

And it didn't occur to these people that it wasn't a meteorite? Low-density meteors don't normally get to the ground -- they are much more likely to vaporize in the atmosphere. A low-density sample like this is immediately suspect.

Conclusion: Three identifications out of 628 samples, one of the three is not likely to be a real meteorite, terrestrial contamination cannot really be ruled out, and this work is neither refereed AFAIK nor published in a normal scientific journal. I call shenanigans.

Reference: http://arxiv.org/abs/1303.1845

bobwaycott• 13 years ago

Why is this article receiving so many upvotes given the rather apparent consensus that it is overhyped and/or untrustworthy analysis presented in a disreputable journal?

brass9• 13 years ago

It's curious the MIT article tries to downplay the role of Wickramasinghe behind this research finding. NC Wickramasinghe may be a brilliant scientist, but any news regarding possible extra-terrestrial life-form and his name appearing together instantly raises alarm bells all over the place. Wickramasinghe is the von Däniken of astrobiology.

Astrobiologists Find Ancient Fossils in Meteorite Fragments

Related Stories